Protagonist hits friend. Protagonist yells at friend and calls them a bad name. Dependent Variables. Moral Evaluations. Psychological Knowledge. Judgments.
Moral Complexity in Middle Childhood: Children’s Evaluations of Necessary Harm Marc Jambon and Judith Smetana University of Rochester
Introduction Many situations entail conflicts between competing moral concerns (Helwig, 1995). Although norms against harm are universal, there are instances where
Results Independent Variables Story
Harm Type
(within subjects)
(between subjects)
emerges at around age 6 (Darley & Shultz, 1990). However, it is unclear whether reasoning about such necessary harm changes with age or whether Prototypical Harm
Necessary Harm
Physical Harm
Psychological Harm
Straight forward, selfish
Well-intended, preventing greater harm to self or others
Protagonist hits friend
Protagonist yells at friend and calls them a bad name
the factors influencing the salience of concerns differ for younger and older children. Specific advances in children’s knowledge of others’ minds plays a role in the emergence of more nuanced moral evaluations. However, most studies examining the relationship between mental state understanding (i.e., theory of
Dependent Variables Moral Evaluations
Psychological Knowledge
developments in psychological knowledge at later ages (Wainryb & Brehl,
Judgments
Justifications
2006). An understanding of discrete mental states such as beliefs and
(3 point scales)
(present/absent)
intentions emerges during the preschool years, but children do not actively
Wrongness Why was the act - was actor’s actions ok/not ok? ok or not ok (little bad, very bad)? Actor transgression – references to the protagonists’ harm Deserved Punishment - Should actor get in Actor Positive trouble (little, lot)? Act/Intent
appreciate the interpretative and subjective nature of mental life until middle to late childhood (Carpendale & Chandler, 1996). Psychological knowledge may also be important for children’s understanding of abstract moral concepts such as psychological harm (e.g. causing emotional distress). Prior to age 7 or 8, children show deficits in their ability to attend to
Harmful intent belief (yes/no) What was the actor really trying to do? Were they trying to hurt their friend?
actor’s positive intentions or their attempts to prevent harm or protect themselves or others
* Higher scores = more wrong and more deserving of punishment
perspective and an actor’s intent (Helwig et al., 1995, 2001). More research is needed to understand how the development of children’s psychological knowledge of others beyond the preschool years is implicated in more
*Responses on either question indicating a belief that the actor’s intention was to harm was coded as ‘yes’
b = .05, p = * Necessary Harm
b = - .08, p = ***
With age, children were less likely to reference the actor’s transgression in the necessary harm condition (Left). Children were more likely to mention the actor’s positive actions/intent with age, but only when actors used psychological harm (Right).
Older
[Necessary Harm Condition]
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Psychological Harm
Physical Harm
b = .16, p = ***
b = .04, p = ns
Younger
Older
Actor Interpretation (5 point scale) Did the actor think they were doing something alright (just ok, little good, very good) or not alright (little bad, very bad)?
- references to the
the moral features of psychologically harmful acts, such as the victim’s
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Actor Positive Act/Intent Prototypical Harm
Younger
*Higher scores = actors have more positive views of their own harm
Psychological Knowledge % children scord 'yes'
mind) and morality have been limited to early childhood, despite significant
(a)
Actor Transgression % containing justification
Children’s understanding of situations entailing mitigating circumstances
Moral Justification Responses
% responses containing justification
hurting others may be justified (e.g., self defense; protecting loved ones).
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Harmful Intent Beliefs Prototypical Harm
4 Most children did not believe actors were trying to cause harm (Left).
Actor Interpretation Ratings
3
Prototypical Harm
Necessary Harm
b = .00, p = ns
1 b = .18, p = **
b = -.05, p = **
Younger
Necessary Harm
2
Children rated all actors as having more positive and accepting views of their own harmful actions (Right).
0 Older
Younger
Older
complex, flexible moral evaluations
Analysis Plan
.
Hypotheses 1 and 2:
Current Study Aims Objective:
Moral Evaluations & Psychological Knowledge
2 (Story) X 2 (Harm Type) X Age ANCOVAs
Forgiveness Ratings
Age treated as a continuous variable
Examine children’s understanding of well-intended, necessary
Interactions involving age probed using simple slopes analyses
harm during the middle childhood years.
Hypotheses:
Hierarchical regressions
1) Moral Evaluations: Older children would… be more forgiving of necessary harm than younger children
Results
refer more to the well-intended actor’s positive intentions and less to the harm
transgressor meant to prevent harm, but with age children would rate actors
2
Prototypical Harm Necessary Harm
1
3) Psychological Knowledge and Moral Judgments: Controlling for age and
b = -.17, p = **
Moral Judgments
harmful intent beliefs, more positive ratings of the actor’s interpretation would be .
Older children judged necessary harm to be less wrong and less deserving of punishment than younger children.
0
Younger
Methods
Older
Deserved Punishment 2
b = .00, p = ns
Prototypical Harm
57% male, 72% European American, lower middle to upper middle class 1
Necessary Harm
b = -.15, p = **
Stimuli & Design: 2 (Story) X 2 (Harm Type) design
β
SE
Δ R2
b
β
SE
.40**
.27
.04
.07**
-.37 .02
.08**
.41
.02
.07
.10
.06
-.02
-.05 .04
-.06
-.15
.03
Harmful intent
-.07
-.03 .25
-.26
-.24 .17
-.06
-.02
.14
Age x Harm Type
-.04
-.12 .03
-.02
-.10 .02
-.06*
-.31
.02
.09**
.28
.03
.10
Harm type
**
.07**
.22** .32** .47**
.54
.06** -.10** -.30 .04
.06 .24**
.46**
Across middle childhood, children come to understand that harm may be morally justifiable in some circumstances. This is tied
actions.
Semi-structured interviews; hypothetical vignettes
b
Discussion
b = .05, p = ns
engaging in necessary harm as having more positive and accepting views of their
76 children (Mage = 7.79, SD= 1.85, Range = 5.17 – 11.42 years)
Δ R2 .17**
Age
Total R2
Wrongness
SE
.25**
Actor interpretations
2) Psychological Knowledge: All children would understand that the
β
b
Actor Positive Act/Intent
-
Step 2
caused by the actor in the necessary harm condition.
Participants:
Step 1
For necessary (but not prototypical) harm, children who viewed actors as holding more positive views of their own behavior were more forgiving of the transgressions, focusing less on the actor’s transgression and more on their positive actions/intent.
Hypothesis 3:
associated with more forgiving moral judgments and justifications
Δ R2
Actor Transgression
0
Younger
Older
to their developing appreciation for others’ psychological perspective. However, older children’s willingness to focus on the actor’s positive actions and intentions depended on the type of harm depicted. While age-related increases in psychological knowledge were evident across both prototypical and necessary harm stories, the ability to consider the actor’s perspective was associated with judgments of necessary but not prototypical harm. Therefore, understanding the underlying motivations for an action does not determine children’s moral judgments. Rather, it serves as a tool for the emergence of more complex forms of moral thought. References Carependale, J. & Chandler, M. (1996). On the distinction between false belief understanding and subscribing to an interpretive theory of mind. Child Development, 67, 1686-1706. Darley, J. & Shultz, T. (1990). Moral rules: Their content and acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 525-556. Helwig, C. (1995). Social context in social cognition: Psychological harm and civil liberties. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in Everyday Life: Developmental Perspectives (pp. 166-200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Helwig, C., Hildebrandt, C., & Turiel, E. (1995). Children’s judgments about psychological harm in social context. Child Development, 66, 1680-1693. Helwig, C., Zelazo, P., &Helwig, C., Zelazo, P., & Wilson, M. (2001). Children’s judgments of psychological harm in normal and noncanonical situations. Child Development, 72, 66-81. Smetana, J. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children's moral and social judgments. In M. Killen and J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Development (pp. 119-153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wainryb, C., & Brehl, B. (2006). I thought she knew that would hurt my feelings: Developing psychological knowledge and moral thinking. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior (pp. 131-171). New York: Elsevier.
